Simpsons Censored in Japan

We all know the iconic series The Simpsons, which has been running on Fox since Christmas of 1989. But if you live in Japan, there is one episode that you will likely never see. The episode is called, "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo," and if you've never seen it, let me give you a quick description: Homer and the rest of the Simpsons win free plane tickets to anywhere in the world. The only problem is, they don't know what country they're going to. Once they get bored, they just steal the Flanders' tickets to Japan. As you can imagine, even Japan is not safe from the zany antics of the Simpsons. One of the most controversial scenes is, due to Homer not understanding the difference between traditional sumo wrestling, and WWF style American wrestling, he throws the emperor of the country into a pile of the wrestlers' underwear. Once in jail, they are seen doing many stereotypically Japanese things, like making origami and dressing like geishas. But once out of jail, they find that their passports have expired, and they have to go on a Japanese game show to get plane tickets home.

 Now, if you've ever seen a Japanese game show, they are very different and much more extreme than ours, and the clever writers of The Simpsons seem to have exaggerated this for comedic effect. But apparently the Japanese government was not happy with the mocking of their culture by the American cartoon. To this day, the episode has never aired in Japan, and was even removed from the DVD version of the show's 10th anniversary box set. Censorship is nothing new. I can't tell you how many episodes of Pokemon have been drastically altered or never seen in the U.S. due to their sexual content or violence. My question to you is this: do you think that countries should have the right to ban or cut whole episodes due to their differing cultural norms, or if it might seem offensive to a foreign audience, or do you think people just need to lighten up?

Oz and Atheism

Many of us grew up watching the classic 1939 "The Wizard of Oz." For many of us it's just a sweet children's movie but I believe it may have a deeper meaning. I believe "The Wizard of Oz" could be a tale about religion and atheism. Let me explain.You see many clues in the film and the book. One comes in the beginning of the book when Glinda says that the one person who might know how Dorothy can get home is the Wizard of Oz. She says this even though it's made evident later in the film that nobody has ever seen the wizard. This could be a metaphor for blind faith and religion.
Also, take the fact that Scarecrow, Lion, Tinman and Dorothy are all missing vital parts of themselves that only the wizard can give them, and going along the Yellow Brick Road, or a narrow set of rules, to get what they want out of life. Finally, three scenes towards the end of the film, the wizard is revealed to be a fraud and a con artist. And, Glinda reveals to Dorothy that she always had the power to go back to Kansas on her own. This could symbolize the theatrics of certain religions and how they make people dependent on them for their salvation. One more thing to think about: Oz compared to Kansas seems like a dream. It's colorful and magical, but it's ultimately shown that Oz is not all that it's cracked up to be. So, can Oz represent heaven and the Wizard, God? Don't get me wrong it could be a harmless children's story but that's just my theory.

Freedom of the Press...Or Maybe Not

Ever since ancient times, leaders and rulers have tried to control how they are perceived. Ancient pharaohs would put painters to death for portraying them with even the slightest blemish. But now, even though that has softened, the tendency to edit the public's view of their leaders still goes on. Many people know about the White House Press Corps. But I don't think too many Americans are aware of the job of the president's personal photographer. His job, since he is paid directly by the White House, is to portray the administration in, shall we say, a more filtered light than the president would get in a normal press conference. For instance, the press during Roosevelt's time was barred from ever seeing him in his wheelchair. In fact, only one photo of him in his chair survives.

And these days, it's gotten even worse. Since the advent of television and the internet, the so-called "Average Day at the White House" series has chronicled the President's "day-to-day life". But even these specials are carefully edited and rehearsed. For instance, in 1990, in one special, it was reported that a scene with Barbara Bush simply delivering letters to the President had to be reshot fifteen times because the filmmaker didn't think the way she said, "Hi, George," was natural enough. Under the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, presidential filtering has reached new heights. I'm sure we all remember the "Mission Accomplished" statement with George W. Bush dressed in Army fatigues, or perhaps the scene with Obama sitting on the bus that Rosa Parks sat on; it was later discovered that he only invited his personal White House photographer to photograph him in the bus.

The question I want to ask you, is do you think it is appropriate for presidents and world leaders in general, to constantly try to control and present an image to the public, or are we being fed an image, and not who the person really is, or what they believe?

Supreme Madness

I want you to imagine something for a moment. Imagine that you lived in a place that was ruled by a few select individuals that could never be voted off or replaced: they were there for life. Now imagine that I told you that that is essentially what we have here now in the United States. Yes, it's called the Supreme Court. On the surface we have representative democracy. Big issues, like abortion and birth control, the internment of Japanese Americans: these are just some of the life changing issues that have been decided on by this unelected, non replaceable body of government. I think it's insane that we leave some of the most important issues, to what I consider to be a direct attack on the democratic ideal. In my opinion, the Supreme Court needs to be demolished, or at least drastically reformed. They need to hold term limits and be able to be fired. We can no longer allow this small group of defacto leaders of our nation to make such important, life changing decisions for all of us. Reform or end the Supreme Court now.

The Right to Die

In the 1990's a doctor named Jack Kevorkian made headlines when he invented a machine that could assist in the suicide of terminally ill patients. Even though Dr. Kevorkian had video tapes of his patients stating they wanted to die, he was still convicted of murder and sentenced to eight and a half years in prison. The question is: do patients have the right to end their lives with the help of a physician? My opinion is yes, and I am not alone. Switzerland, Oregon, Washington state, and Vermont have lifted their ban on assisted suicide.
But I also see there are legitimate concerns, like when a person is in severe pain, they might make irrational decisions that they cannot take back later. But I still think that a person's body is theirs to choose what to do with. And, I think it's arrogant of the state to force the patient to take chemo drugs, lose their hair, vomit, and make them more miserable than they already are just because they're afraid of what might happen. After all, wasn't America founded on risky undertakings? The founding fathers knew that if they were caught they would be executed. But, they still did the right thing.

So, What's Your Real Motive?

In recent years, the right wing, socially conservative Pro-Life movement in America has differed a bit from years past. Where they used to say all human life is sacred, they now say anyone who supports birth control or women's reproductive rights is racist. Well, they don't actually say that, but that is what they imply. Let me explain: in recent years, there has been an increasing amount of focus on the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, for her supposedly racist, eugenic views. Eugenics, for those who don't know, is the belief that one can improve the human condition by controlling who has children and who doesn't. It was put into use most infamously in Nazi Germany.

But what the pro-life movement won't tell you is that Margaret Sanger was not alone in her eugenicist or racial views. Many scientists and prominent figures of the twentieth century held views that we would today consider racist. Let's not forget how Henry Ford used to hand out copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an infamously anti-Semitic, conspiratorial screed, with every new car that he sold. Or, shall we go to old Walt Disney? Disney was notorious for asking his employees about their genetic makeup before he hired them. If they had one drop of Jewish blood in their system, sorry, no room for you at the Magic Kingdom. Some even get Hollywood movies: King Edward VIII, perhaps best-known for abdicating England's throne to marry an American divorcee, sent Hitler himself a birthday card in 1939, 5 months before the Nazis rolled into Poland. My point is, this is not about exposing the racist nature of Planned Parenthood, or even condemning eugenics. This is about controlling women, and making them little more than breeders. Do not be fooled by the new mask: this is about taking away a woman's most basic right, to direct her own destiny.

Freedom of Speech: Born 1776, Died 2014

These days, I've noticed a disturbing trend in American politics. It seems like you can't have an opinion anymore without somebody questioning not only your ideas, but your very character. If you disagree with them, your very character is called into question. Take gun control for example. On both sides of the issue, the character assassination seems to be taken to extremes. If you're for gun control, you're unpatriotic and un-American. If you're against gun control, you don't care about innocent school children dying. When did it become acceptable to question a person's character and values simply because they disagree with someone on an issue? Take the case of former CNN anchor Piers Morgan.In 2012, when the tragic shooting happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Piers took the lead in anchors and media personalities calling for stronger gun control laws. For this, he was attacked and even physically threatened. It was as if people were saying, "How dare this foreigner come to our country and lecture us about our laws, and how dare he even have an opinion about our laws?"  as if we're not comfortable endlessly lecturing other countries about what they're doing wrong; but when we get a taste of our own medicine, we want to kick the guy out. Let me say this: Piers Morgan may have been, in fact, an evil conspirator working to overthrow the Constitution. Or maybe not. The point is, we have to stop assuming that just because someone disagrees with us, they're an evil or bad person. They're not. It's called freedom of speech. People are going to disagree with you. Get used to it.